The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

It isn't pleasant to get into a debate and have one's arguments bashed over with strawmans, red herring, and so forth.

If Atheist could defend their statements or argue against others with actual logic or reasoning then a debate could happen.

As it is you have to argue for 5 rounds just to show that what the Atheist says doesn't even follow.

Like I said earlier this week.

Atheist: I don't accept that as evidence for God, because in the future I hope someone will scientifically discover how that happens with out God. I hope and assert that in the future my believe in no god/s will be verified.

And they say it doesn't take "Faith" to be Atheist.

It's not that the anti-theist in this forum don't know stuff.. is just that a lot of what they know simply isn't so.

The fact that this board is one of the most active on DDO shows that people are debating constantly on this forum. Read the threads. I personally post in the forums as opposed to engaging in one on one debate because I like reading a variety of answers to original posts. Time is also an issue. A real debate takes time to research. I have time for short posts, but not time for long debates. Another issue is that it is difficult to debate something--such as the existence of God--when one side has not seen the God that they believe in, and the other side cannot disprove God's existence. There is no clear cut answer. All the debates on religion have already taken place, there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new anyone can add to the discussion.

1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.

Its dominated by cats and atheists and they have no foundations to really stand . If you talk about bible prophecy to a cat. they have no legs , If you talk to a atheist about bible prophecy they just say your nuts and put you down . Enjoy

It isn't pleasant to get into a debate and have one's arguments bashed over with strawmans, red herring, and so forth.

If Atheist could defend their statements or argue against others with actual logic or reasoning then a debate could happen.

As it is you have to argue for 5 rounds just to show that what the Atheist says doesn't even follow.

If you switch atheists with theists: +1

Like I said earlier this week.

Atheist: I don't accept that as evidence for God, because in the future I hope someone will scientifically discover how that happens with out God. I hope and assert that in the future my believe in no god/s will be verified.

Why is that unreasonable? Basically, your position is (based on what you just said there), if we don't know something, than it must be a deity. Atheists don't need to use any evidence. The position is the negative, and in science (a process of how we learn and know things) positions that are positive (like, 'god exists') are considered false until proven true. The reasoning behind this, is because it would be overly tedious to attempt to disprove unfalsifiable hypotheses, unproven hypotheses, guesses and assertions. If they cannot be proven (proven to an extent that it is not only a possibility, but has some backing in logic, evidence, or in some cases, common sense), they are, and should be treated as false.

When I say false though, I don't mean wrong. I simply mean treated as a possibility so remote that it is not worth considering.

And they say it doesn't take "Faith" to be Atheist.

Well, that would depend. Let's turn religion into a specturm. For our purposes, it will be an X-Y graph.

To the left will be Atheism, or a lack of belief in a deity. To the right will be Theism, or the belief in a deity with specific properties. In the center will be a form of Deism, or belief in a god with undefined properties, or any other unafilliated belief. As you go up on the graph, you move towards Agnosticism, or the position that we cannot at this time know whether a deity exists. As you move down, you move towards Gnosticism, or the position that we can know if god exists. While this does not encompase all beliefs, this simplistic graph will suit our purposes.

Most self-described atheists I have met (with the exception of Atheism +) fall under the category Agnostic Atheist, or the top left of the graph. These people do not believe in a god, but know they can be wrong. They simply choose to disbelieve based on the stance that unproven hypotheses are wrong until proven true. They know they might be wrong, and very well could be, but they refuse to change their position until there is evidence. Now you can debate on what they qualify as sufficient evidence, or their standard of evidence, but that nonetheless, is their position.

Your argument would only apply to the bottom right of the graph, or Gnostic Atheists, atheists who disbelieve in a god and KNOW they are right. For those people, I would actually agree with your statement. They do base their position on faith, as god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Strong atheism makes absolutely no sense at all. However, I rarely, if ever meet atheists who fall under the category of Gnostic Atheist. Most Gnostics I have met seem to fall under the Unafilliated Theist, Deist, or Theist categories.

It's not that the anti-theist in this forum don't know stuff.. is just that a lot of what they know simply isn't so.

Isn't the point of debate to resolve disagreements? We don't have to agree to have a debate. That is kindof the point of debates on this site.

I personally don't do debates, because I am often away, or my internet it down, or I have tests in one of my many AP classes that my parents made me take, and I simply have no time to research or post with any regularity. If I had more time, I would participate in more debates.

Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

Because nobody votes on 'em. The only ones that gain any interest at all are atheist versus theist, and the votes on those run pretty much parallel to the opinions of the reviewers that they had prior to even reading it.

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

I can't see how an intelligent debate can be forged from those whose understanding of the world around them is based on myths and superstitions, faith and belief, and the boogeyman.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

It isn't pleasant to get into a debate and have one's arguments bashed over with strawmans, red herring, and so forth.

If Atheist could defend their statements or argue against others with actual logic or reasoning then a debate could happen.

As it is you have to argue for 5 rounds just to show that what the Atheist says doesn't even follow.

If you switch atheists with theists: +1

Like I said earlier this week.

Atheist: I don't accept that as evidence for God, because in the future I hope someone will scientifically discover how that happens with out God. I hope and assert that in the future my believe in no god/s will be verified.

Why is that unreasonable? Basically, your position is (based on what you just said there), if we don't know something, than it must be a deity. Atheists don't need to use any evidence. The position is the negative, and in science (a process of how we learn and know things) positions that are positive (like, 'god exists') are considered false until proven true. The reasoning behind this, is because it would be overly tedious to attempt to disprove unfalsifiable hypotheses, unproven hypotheses, guesses and assertions. If they cannot be proven (proven to an extent that it is not only a possibility, but has some backing in logic, evidence, or in some cases, common sense), they are, and should be treated as false.

When I say false though, I don't mean wrong. I simply mean treated as a possibility so remote that it is not worth considering.

And they say it doesn't take "Faith" to be Atheist.

Well, that would depend. Let's turn religion into a specturm. For our purposes, it will be an X-Y graph.

To the left will be Atheism, or a lack of belief in a deity. To the right will be Theism, or the belief in a deity with specific properties. In the center will be a form of Deism, or belief in a god with undefined properties, or any other unafilliated belief. As you go up on the graph, you move towards Agnosticism, or the position that we cannot at this time know whether a deity exists. As you move down, you move towards Gnosticism, or the position that we can know if god exists. While this does not encompase all beliefs, this simplistic graph will suit our purposes.

Most self-described atheists I have met (with the exception of Atheism +) fall under the category Agnostic Atheist, or the top left of the graph. These people do not believe in a god, but know they can be wrong. They simply choose to disbelieve based on the stance that unproven hypotheses are wrong until proven true. They know they might be wrong, and very well could be, but they refuse to change their position until there is evidence. Now you can debate on what they qualify as sufficient evidence, or their standard of evidence, but that nonetheless, is their position.

Your argument would only apply to the bottom right of the graph, or Gnostic Atheists, atheists who disbelieve in a god and KNOW they are right. For those people, I would actually agree with your statement. They do base their position on faith, as god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Strong atheism makes absolutely no sense at all. However, I rarely, if ever meet atheists who fall under the category of Gnostic Atheist. Most Gnostics I have met seem to fall under the Unafilliated Theist, Deist, or Theist categories.

It's not that the anti-theist in this forum don't know stuff.. is just that a lot of what they know simply isn't so.

Isn't the point of debate to resolve disagreements? We don't have to agree to have a debate. That is kindof the point of debates on this site.

I personally don't do debates, because I am often away, or my internet it down, or I have tests in one of my many AP classes that my parents made me take, and I simply have no time to research or post with any regularity. If I had more time, I would participate in more debates.

I am just done trying to have a discussion with people who clearly exhibit an inability to think critically, understand science, logic, reason, or be able to recognize FORMALLY invalid arguments.

Example 1:I'm going to live like I won't die because somewhere in the future I will being able to buy medical treatment to extend my life.

Does that sound reasonable? possible maybe but certainly not shrewd.

Maybe if we remove GOD from the sentences you can recognize how stupid some atheist sound.

At 12/21/2014 4:40:47 PM, Rant wrote:Its dominated by cats and atheists and they have no foundations to really stand . If you talk about bible prophecy to a cat. they have no legs , If you talk to a atheist about bible prophecy they just say your nuts and put you down . Enjoy

The only ones that gain any interest at all are atheist versus theist> Im a bride of Christ waiting for the rapture. debate Me>But you cant because you have no understanding and even how to talk about it.

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

It is more difficult to back a belief?

I have also heard some claim atheists will back other atheists/theists will back other theists, and it is not a true measure. I disagree since I have voted for theists' arguments, and have had theists vote for me. Perhaps, it is a cop-out.

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

Debating with an ancient book isn't fun at all.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

There's no proof that our invisible Creator or His invisible creation within His invisible mind exists.

At 12/21/2014 1:22:35 PM, Ragnar wrote:The religious forum is easily the most active and impassioned forum on this debate website, yet it feels like for all the flame-wars that happen on it, people are on average afraid to challenge each other to debates over what they so strongly disagree with.

Anyone have any clue why that is?

I, personally, am more interested in the historical aspects right now. I am also planning on 2 further debates (currently in one).

Envisage didn't a wonderful job in those debates. But you have found an exception to the general rule. Now that Envisage has made his claims, supported his claims, and made a case... the next step for the theist is to argue on the premises or logic of inference.

But notice how Envisage's arguments are nothing like what you see from atheist in the forums.

If I was making a rebuttal I would say in the first argument that the contradiction does not necessarily exist. All the attributes of God could stem from one aspect of his nature. Meaning the only contradiction would be having a2, a3, a4... entities that are omni-X as well. But the order of existence is just as important. If 2 gases do not mix, and we put the one gas in a container and fill it up, the other gas will not permeate the container. Given that God is Omni-X and existed before anything created than God's existence excludes the existence of anything else omni-X following.

Once a bottle is full of water, the bottle can not be full of sand without the water leaving.

And so forth back and forth would go the arguments. Which is fine and even in the end if Envisage and I disagree, I would say job well done. But there are a thousand atheist to one Envisage where they do not support their bare assertions and do not attempt to investigate the evidence, or rebuttal.

Envisage didn't a wonderful job in those debates. But you have found an exception to the general rule. Now that Envisage has made his claims, supported his claims, and made a case... the next step for the theist is to argue on the premises or logic of inference.

But notice how Envisage's arguments are nothing like what you see from atheist in the forums.

I do not care about atheists on the forums. In all honesty, the forums are crap. There are many good atheist debaters on this site. Thing is, very few go to this hell hole. If you pay attention to this site, you realize that a lot of people want to get rid of the religion forums or add additional rules to it.

I used Envisage because I do not debate religion much online (I do quite often irl), and he is one of the few that also went on the religion forums.

Envisage didn't a wonderful job in those debates. But you have found an exception to the general rule. Now that Envisage has made his claims, supported his claims, and made a case... the next step for the theist is to argue on the premises or logic of inference.

But notice how Envisage's arguments are nothing like what you see from atheist in the forums.

I do not care about atheists on the forums. In all honesty, the forums are crap. There are many good atheist debaters on this site. Thing is, very few go to this hell hole. If you pay attention to this site, you realize that a lot of people want to get rid of the religion forums or add additional rules to it.

I used Envisage because I do not debate religion much online (I do quite often irl), and he is one of the few that also went on the religion forums.

And I was talking in general of the atheist that post in this forum. Envisage has put hard and good work in justifications. But it is not the norm is it? I think not.

What i would like to see is some debate among theist instead of every post being invade by an atheist to say the same crud they espouse in every single post, bringing nothing to the table, dismissing arguments without due process or reasoning.

Plus with Envisage a priori argument. how many universes do you see in this universe? just one.

P1, If the universe (container of all things) is more likely to exist than notP2. u2, u3, u4 .... are more likely to exist than notP3. ContridictionC. The universe is likely not to exist.

Envisage didn't a wonderful job in those debates. But you have found an exception to the general rule. Now that Envisage has made his claims, supported his claims, and made a case... the next step for the theist is to argue on the premises or logic of inference.

But notice how Envisage's arguments are nothing like what you see from atheist in the forums.

I do not care about atheists on the forums. In all honesty, the forums are crap. There are many good atheist debaters on this site. Thing is, very few go to this hell hole. If you pay attention to this site, you realize that a lot of people want to get rid of the religion forums or add additional rules to it.

I used Envisage because I do not debate religion much online (I do quite often irl), and he is one of the few that also went on the religion forums.

And I was talking in general of the atheist that post in this forum. Envisage has put hard and good work in justifications. But it is not the norm is it? I think not.

And if we start talking about the general theist poster in the religion forum, we run into similar issues.

In the religion forums, the norm is that idiots post stuff. Both theists and atheists.

What i would like to see is some debate among theist instead of every post being invade by an atheist to say the same crud they espouse in every single post, bringing nothing to the table, dismissing arguments without due process or reasoning.

Plus with Envisage a priori argument. how many universes do you see in this universe? just one.

P1, If the universe (container of all things) is more likely to exist than notP2. u2, u3, u4 .... are more likely to exist than notP3. ContridictionC. The universe is likely not to exist.

When testing a priori, you are testing an assumption. In your example, the assumption is that things are more likely to exist then not. That does entail contradictions. And testing a priori is not to establish fact, it is to establish a default position. If the assumed priori follows logically, then you have discovered a default position. If the assumed priori does not, then it is not a default position.

We have evidence that at least one universe exists, so the default position is not the correct one.

Envisage didn't a wonderful job in those debates. But you have found an exception to the general rule. Now that Envisage has made his claims, supported his claims, and made a case... the next step for the theist is to argue on the premises or logic of inference.

But notice how Envisage's arguments are nothing like what you see from atheist in the forums.

I do not care about atheists on the forums. In all honesty, the forums are crap. There are many good atheist debaters on this site. Thing is, very few go to this hell hole. If you pay attention to this site, you realize that a lot of people want to get rid of the religion forums or add additional rules to it.

I used Envisage because I do not debate religion much online (I do quite often irl), and he is one of the few that also went on the religion forums.

And I was talking in general of the atheist that post in this forum. Envisage has put hard and good work in justifications. But it is not the norm is it? I think not.

And if we start talking about the general theist poster in the religion forum, we run into similar issues.

In the religion forums, the norm is that idiots post stuff. Both theists and atheists.

What i would like to see is some debate among theist instead of every post being invade by an atheist to say the same crud they espouse in every single post, bringing nothing to the table, dismissing arguments without due process or reasoning.

Plus with Envisage a priori argument. how many universes do you see in this universe? just one.

P1, If the universe (container of all things) is more likely to exist than notP2. u2, u3, u4 .... are more likely to exist than notP3. ContridictionC. The universe is likely not to exist.

When testing a priori, you are testing an assumption. In your example, the assumption is that things are more likely to exist then not. That does entail contradictions. And testing a priori is not to establish fact, it is to establish a default position. If the assumed priori follows logically, then you have discovered a default position. If the assumed priori does not, then it is not a default position.

We have evidence that at least one universe exists, so the default position is not the correct one.

The conclusion is found to be a contradiction, that alludes the assumption is incorrect. Being we know of one universe then the assumption should be. Entities are more likely not to exist than do exist.

Default positions are assumptions established by the system of thought. And should be specific and effective for said system.

Thinking every investigation begins with a default position is a poison to the process. It creates a box people look in, instead of looking at the evidence all around them.